Depolarizing the process : residential redevelopment and Seattle's design review

Abstract

In Seattle, a city with a robust public process around issues of urban growth, recent rapid redevelopment in low-rise neighborhoods has intensified the public debate over design and density. Conflict over individual development projects has escalated as the city struggles to balance economic and population growth with community needs, leaving many residents anxious about congestion, affordability, and a changing built environment. This thesis examines Seattle's design review, which is the central public piece of the city's development review process, and evaluates its success as a collaborative process in this context of divisive growth. Urban design and regulations such as design review are often regarded as the exclusive realm of design professionals; this thesis argues that design review must embrace its role in a participatory planning process. Research draws on existing models of design review as well as collaborative planning theory to evaluate how Seattle's design review can further employ deliberative strategies to reduce polarization over growth and better address community needs. Analysis suggests that the city's framework for design review, which fosters stakeholder relationships and local knowledge as well as design expertise, could be further enhanced by emphasis on dialogue, training, and alignment with other city departments and neighborhood plans.